Homosexuality

Well, I got Jesus brought to me, so I thought I'd go to Jesus, meaning somebody is expressing slanderous intentions that is rather hurtful. So JB simply posted the article without any explanation, but RJC comments made it clear of the intentions. I thought I should say something. After this conversation died off, it went private, but I think the words there are still relevant. I'll point out when the change is made.

JB:

Nebraska assistant coach Ron Brown says he'll keep speaking out against homosexuality even if it costs him his job.

RJC: Gotta love a brother with a backbone.

Me: From where in the Bible do you suppose he's drawing this bigotry? If it's from the Old Testament, do you think he also follows the rest of its rules to the letter of the law? He obviously shaves his head and face, so that's already one strike against him: "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27 

 And could you please tell me what Jesus says on the matter? I'm only really familiar with Mark 12:31. "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these."

JB: Thanks for your thoughts Travis. You are correct in asserting that we do not follow the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, in fact the Church is not under the Mosaic Law. This does not mean however that we cannot glean moral principles from it's standard; do not murder, do not lie, do not steal or commit adultery are all moral laws which we affirm today and homosexuality fits in this category as well. The New Testament affirms this and clearly calls homosexuality a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Timothy 1:10 etc). Concerning Jesus words in Mark 12:31, He certainly does not mean to let your neighbor do anything they want as long as it is good in their own eyes, what kind of love would that be showing? Rather, this command (among other things) is in fact telling us to let our neighbor know if they are in sin and do our best to lovingly help them be reconciled to God. Although Jesus did not address homosexuality directly (However He did affirm the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah numerous times) he constantly affirmed moral laws of the Old Testament, and even made some stricter (Matthew 5:27-28 etc). This being said it is clear that Scripture (Old and New Testaments) condemn homosexuality.

Me: So basically you're saying you get to pick and choose which laws suit your needs?

Me: I Timothy 1:9-10 is a good example.

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

So unless I'm mistaken, this passage tells us that slave traders are put within the same category as murderers and the irreligious, etc. Yet if you look back into the Old Testament, you will see a list of verses that define just how masters should handle their slaves. There are quite a few examples from Exodus 21, and others from Exodus 20:10, Leviticus 25:44-53, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, etc. Below is just one:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." -- Exodus 21:2

Just as with your verses pertaining to homosexuality, this stretches over into the New Testament (Luke 12:47-48, I Timothy 6:1-2). Here is an example:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ ... And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.." -- Ephesians 6:5,9

What I find ridiculous is that I Timothy has contradictions WITHIN THE SAME BOOK! Compare the verses from chapter 1, verses 9-10 (above) with these from chapter 6, verses 1-2: "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have Christian masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves."

So which is it?

Ephesians: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters ... "

OR

I Timothy: "The law is made ... for lawbreakers ... for slave traders ... and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine ... "

Which is being justified here? Am I misreading or is there some sort of conflict here? If one book says one thing, and another the complete opposite, which do you choose? I guess it's your preference. And today we choose to not believe in slavery at all, even though its regulation is clearly outlined within the Bible's chapters. So if you can find it in your heart to no longer believe in slavery, do you think you could go against some of God's other laws and do the same? In regards to homosexuality, do you hate people because of the way they are or do you love them as your neighbor because of it?

Yours is a confusing belief system, my friend. If you choose to allow the slavery aspect of it to evolve, maybe you should consider other aspects as well.

RJC: It's not bigotry to be opposed to immorality. Are you a bigot towards pedophiles and rapists? :) 

Me: ‎"Bigotry is the state of mind of a 'bigot,' a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group. Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

And I know many conservatives question Wikipedia, so I'll also quote Dictionary.com: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

There is a difference here. Pedophiles and rapists are guilty of doing something that is harmful and against somebody else's will (or against the parents' will with instances where children are under the legal definition of adulthood -- with regards to statutory rape). The homosexual lifestyle is two people consenting to the that way of life. It doesn't hurt them, they prefer living that way.

Slavery was eventually seen as being inhumane and something done against someone's will. Homosexuality is biologically-based and if two gay people are in a consenting relationship you shouldn't be the one to tell them how they should feel or act. Why do you want to hate on something that isn't hurting anyone? Do you tell unbelievers what they can and can't do? I know you'd like to save every last one of us, but really, you don't feel like you can dictate what I do, so why should you be able to dictate what anyone else does if it goes against your choice to follow God?

Me: Nobody's telling you not to follow God. But imagine if somebody did. Here's something that feels so right to you and other people are telling you that even though it makes you happy, you can't do it because they don't think it's right. You keep trying to convince them that your belief in God has no affect on their lives, but it falls on deaf ears. Jesus is about love, compassion, and understanding. Show some.

JB: Lots to cover here Travis so I’ll try to be succinct but if you need further detail it is easily available if you ask

1. No we do not get to pick and choose which laws suit our needs, we (all people believers and non-believers) are held accountable to the teachings and commands of the New Testament. Many Old Testament laws and standards were reaffirmed by Jesus and the Apostles. Some were changed, others were added, and new standards were introduced – it is these that we are commanded to follow. It’s not a “personal choice” thing, it is an obedience to Scripture thing. I don’t mind if you quote Old Testament passages, just make sure you are looking at the context to see who the author is writing to and what the situation is; all Scripture is not equally applicable to all people of all times – context is king.

2. You are mistaken concerning your understanding of “slave traders” in 1 Timothy 9-10 in comparison to Ephesians chapter 6. In Timothy the Greek word for “slave trader” in this context referred someone who kidnapped people or stole children for the purpose of selling them into slavery – this is condemned. This is different than the Ephesians context where “master” simply meant someone who owned slaves – this was not a sin. I’m sure in your reading of history you understand that slavery in the Roman world was in many ways much different than slavery in 17-18th century America. Many were glad to be slaves in the Roman world since that ensured their livelihood (food, a place to live and even raise a family) and was often not against their will. What was forbidden was mistreating slaves (Eph 6:5,9) or dishonoring your master ( 1 Timothy 6:1-2). So with this understanding (kidnapping and stealing people vs. owning slaves) it is obvious that there is no contradiction within 1 Timothy – it’s not confusing at all. Also your verse reference concerning this in Luke 12:47-48 is also incorrect. Jesus’ teaching here had nothing to do with slavery but rather the judgment we all face (you and I included) at the end of the age. He was simply giving a parable that included a common cultural element (slavery) to illustrate his point, a common practice in ancient near-eastern culture

3. If you use the definition “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” does that mean you are a bigot because you do not accept my belief concerning homosexuality? The real question concerns what is morally right and wrong and not personal opinion (yours or mine).

4. Although I agree with Rose’s usage of rapists and pedophiles, I will concede the difference between doing something that’s against someone’s will and doing something consensual, that’s fair. But there are still issues with this. What if one man wants to marry three women and all women consent to it, is that ok? What if a person wants to marry his dog? What about people who do drugs, they willingly do this don’t they, so should it be ok? There must be a standard of right and wrong. Is the only standard “as long as it’s not hurting anyone”? This is a very subjective (and dangerous) standard. Homosexuality is not biological, it is a choice. However, even if it was biological it would still be wrong because God has said so.

5. I do not hate gay people. Just in the same way as I don’t hate adulterers, fornicators, liars, or thieves – they are sinners just like me. But, this does not mean I have to accept their chosen lifestyle and not tell them in a loving way that what they are doing is wrong (again, not by my standards but by God’s standards). This is not “dictating” what people do, it is just telling them that what they are doing (whether adultery, lying, homosexuality) is sin and then seeking to help them be reconciled to God. Something we all need, whether straight or gay.

6. Lastly, it is important to keep in mind that saying something is “wrong” and that something should be “illegal” are not necessarily the same thing. You did not touch on this but I wanted to make it clear.

 

JB: Again, following after God or believing homosexuality is wrong is not a “feeling” thing as you say; it is a matter of right and wrong, truth and untruth. Jesus is indeed about love, compassion and understanding – but He was certainly not about allowing people to live any way that felt right to them.

Me: 1. Where in the Bible are slavery laws overridden? If they weren't why do you support the abolishment of slavery?

2. Fair enough. This is the biggest problem with translating translations of already translated materials. But I appreciate your clarification. However, the fact remains that having slaves is no longer seen as a credible lifestyle. Yet, in both testaments it is promoted, just like homosexuality is condemned.

Did you just condone slavery? For one, Roman slavery wasn't all that you're cracking it up to be. Many were forced to be gladiators and it was a kill-or-be-killed type of environment. And I'm sure some slaves in the South did appreciate a place to live while living out their servitude, and when emancipation came they likely didn't know what to do with themselves, but once they got used to their new conditions they probably appreciated it. There's no real way to know this without actual references. But do you think that slaves, if asked, would respond by saying that they appreciate where their lifestyle? You cannot rationalize an "evil". Is killing justifiable if it makes your life better even though your life was never in danger? "Because they didn't mind" is a ridiculous response. They didn't have a choice. You know who has that kind of mentality? Rapists. They justify their misdeeds in their heads.

3. No. I don't tell you how to live your life. You are imposing your ideals on other people. Again, if you thought that killing was OK for whatever justification you had, should I just accept this? The idea behind basic law is that things that are harmful to other people are not allowed. How does homosexuality between consenting couples harm you?

4. Personally, polygamy is interesting to me, but I think it causes more harm than good. Today's version is just having mistresses. I'm not condoning this because it can create hurt feelings between the men and women involved. Nice one to think about though. That is a toughie, since, really, the Bible condones that, does it not? As for bestiality, you don't really know the level of consent with the animal.

Drugs should be legal. I think that if alcohol is allowed, then other drugs should be in a monitored fashion. The government would get a lot of income on this policy. Drugs are only hurting the individual. Granted suicide is a "sin", but is self-harm a crime? I've never seen a Law & Order on that one.

"Homosexuality is not biological, it is a choice. However, even if it was biological it would still be wrong because God has said so."

I wonder then, why people who are so persecuted choose to be so. I don't know any martyr that did what they do just for kicks. Can you explain that one to me? They're not trying to just be "cool". "God says so" is the biggest cop out from Christians when they're backed into a corner. I was hoping not to see that in this conversation. You've done pretty well so far. Since I don't believe in God it's about as good as me saying "Because I said so".

5. It is fair to tell somebody when you feel they are doing wrong, but what power should you have over them when they aren't involving or harming anyone but the consenting adults? If I don't like you loitering outside of my house or in any public places and I just don't like it. I can tell you to leave or to stop it, but I don't have any legal authority over it. These people have no qualms with you other than you're telling them what they can or can't do.

6. I guess you never did say whether or not you thought gay marriage should be legal. Thoughts? If you do not condone it you are effectively saying that homosexuality should be "illegal". Gay marriage would effectively make it "legal". I'm already aware that you feel it is wrong.

Me: Also, much like people riding dinosaurs, please inform yourself on the science before forming conclusions. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

Or if you don't believe the science, which I might reluctantly accept, at least ask the people who are being affected by your discrimination.

RJC: The issue here seems to be a clash of religions, Travis. You have set yourself up as a rival God and have decreed that immorality consists of only that which in your estimation, harms another. While you entirely entitled to believe as you wish this side of eternity the rub comes when you determine to impose your new "morality" on others. Do your religious views include freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience?

Me: Morality is individually based. So when you put quotes around it when you're referencing me, I find that highly offensive. The difference here is that you seem to think that your religion is the end-all. Where it is in your head, and I accept that personal stance, you should also be aware that not everyone ascribes to that lifestyle. Actually, in the grand scheme of things, Christianity is not the dominant world religion. More people in this world believe something different than you. Instead, what I am suggesting here, is that when it comes to laws of the land, when it comes to people who live outside of the Bible (separation of church and state), that you have some understanding for people who don't live the same way as you.

I realize that you think they're going to hell and that it's God's commands to have you tell these people what they need to do in order to be saved, but there are people, such as myself, who are aware of this phenomena and nothing that you do or say is going to change that. Me, for instance. I realize that you are not going to NOT be a Christian based on anything I can tell you. I can point to incongruities in the Bible, I can tell you how scientifically talking donkeys never existed, that chariots of fire crossing the sky is something straight out of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Noah's voyage is oddly familiar to Gilgamesh's older adventure, etc. But you're going to have some justification as to why this still fits into your world view. I accept that.

ALL I AM ASKING is that you let others live their own life. In a world where compromise is essential for peace, you would think that "live and let live" would be an ideal compromise. You can think that people who don't live your lifestyle are going to burn in hell, fine. But to impose your ideals on them is RELIGIOUS discrimination. My telling you that you shouldn't support legislation that condemns homosexuals is not me telling you that you can't practice your religion. It's actually me telling you that you should be compassionate and understanding for people who aren't like you. It's my diplomacy versus your intolerance. Can't you be the bigger person and say, "Well, I don't approve of this, but I can see how this does no harm to myself, so I will not oppose this."? I am not gay. I know gay people, I have had many gay coworkers, but I don't necessarily have any close gay friends. I have no real stake in this. But what you're practicing is intolerance and I don't understand how people can sit through sermon after sermon, week after week, where these types of messages are spread. I put in my time, I've been through hundreds or thousands of sermons. I don't ever remember hearing, "Be kind to everyone, except if they're not like you, then be afraid and petition for the appropriate legislation that condemns them." I thought it was more of "Jesus loves everyone". Being a good person regardless of religion means being tolerant. But when you have a religion that tells you to be tolerant, you probably should be. (Going from the NT here, cuz we all know what the OT looks like with respect to people different from yourself -- you kill them.)

RJC: Tell you what, I'll leave you to put into practice the practical application of your beliefs and I will reserve the right to put into practice all the practical applications of my belief, as "I" understand it from the Scriptures to the best of my ability. And I will also reserve another right for you, that of your right to disagree with my position with the utmost earnestness, and I reserve for myself the right to warn you of the eternal implications of living in defiance to God. Is that fair? Now that is TRUE tolerance.

Me: The problem is that your beliefs are founded on the idea of pushing your beliefs on others. So right from the start it's imposing rather than tolerant. I realize the notion is that you're trying to help others reach salvation, but some people just don't want it.

It's the same problem I have with the US or any other powerful entity going abroad and trying to implement what they see as being helpful measures on a community or country with obvious problems. But when it is implemented elsewhere it proves to be a failure, be it because of environmental issues or issues with the culture's past. There is a story from early contact in today's Indonesia where Europeans came in and saw the aqueducts that had been there for what looked like some time, but they zig-zagged their way down the mountainside. The Europeans thought that this was ridiculous and suggested/forced that the aqueduct just come straight down the mountain. Once this was done, it wasn't too much later that the entire mountainside collapsed from water erosion. Now what was once a practice that had been serving people well for hundreds or more years, somebody comes in and thinks they have a better idea. Obviously in this scenario, it wasn't the case, since the people were already well-acquainted with their environment and knew what worked for them.

"I reserve for myself the right to warn you of the eternal implications of living in defiance to God. Is that fair?" What if I don't want to be constantly badgered by your beliefs? How is that a compromise or fair? The gay community wants to be left to their own devices, but the Christian community comes in and says -- "You're doing it wrong." Guess what? You're just making their lives hell. Is being an instigator being respectful of other people's beliefs? Realize that you're not helping. Again. The only way in which I'm restricting your rights to believe what you want is to not impose it (lawfully) on other people. You can condemn it in word but to be an asshole about it only makes you look like an evil, uncaring, intolerant person.

Me: My point is understanding. If the Europeans had taken the time to see where the future Indonesians had come from, their ultimate solution wouldn't have been to totally change the foundation of their waterworks. Take time to understand the people who you think are doing wrong. Learn, interact, don't just judge based on nothing but assumptions. Understanding leads to tolerance. You don't have to like it, just tolerate it.

RJC: So, I don't agree with YOU, If I don't compromise my convictions to meet YOUR standard, I am the one who is intolerant. Your beliefs are not founded on the idea of pushing your beliefs on others?? Hello! Are completely oblivious to your own intolerance?

Me: Well, first off, if you're seeing me as intolerant then you HAVE TO see yourself in the same light. Do you?

OK. This is how I see it. Correct me you see it otherwise.

Christians: Do as I do/God says. It is the only right way.
Non-Christians (whatever label you want): Do what you want unless it hurts somebody.

What I find hilarious is that most conservatives are concerned about the government being involved in their lives: "Give me my guns and otherwise stay out of my business."

But then when it comes to issues like gay marriage, they are wondering where the government is on this one: "Do your job! Impose some laws!"

But regardless, I think it would suit you well once again to consult the dictionary on the matter:
Tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

You do not share a permissive attitude of people who do not share your same ideology. It's as simple as that.

RJC: In wishing to be tolerant I invite you to be as intolerant of my views as you might wish to be, Okay? :) 'nuff said. I genuinely wish you the very best, Travis. Oh, by the way I should introduce myself after such a long heart-to-heart, I'm JB's mother-in-law. You're welcome to offer him my condolences. :)

RJC: ooops, I meant offer James YOUR condolences.

Me: As far as I'm concerned, I'm guilty of the intolerance of intolerance. So in a sense, you're correct. Good night.

Me: And we don't have to take on this conversation any longer, but consider our argument in terms of race. Should black people and white people be segregated?

Side A: Yes
Team 2: No

Side A: I don't believe they deserve it. "They aren't people." (Or whatever excuse.)
Team 2: I think that they are just like any of the rest of us.

So if I take the side that is suppressing black civil rights (Side A), am I justified or am I being intolerant? The KKK may have some justification for their reasons. Am I supposed to allow them to do what they want that is harmful or limiting to people, or should I allow black people to live their lives like they were just an average person (Team 2)? One is imposing restrictions the other is allowing freedom. Please, think about it.

IS: You guys should meet for coffee. Facebook is lame anyways :)

Me: That's alright. I think that's about as straight-forward as I can get; not much more could be said: Do you allow discrimination or not? Do you love or hate regardless of religion beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, sex, race, etc? You're the ones who are going to have to answer to Jesus for that one.

Here is where it switches to just a one-on-one conversation. I'm not sure why people can't have a conversation in public if they are so adamant about their convictions. Here it begins:

JB: Travis, first I want to say again that I appreciate the conversation we’ve had. These types of issues can often get passionate but I think we’ve all kept a pretty good cool throughout. Here are a few more of my thoughts essentially geared toward some questions you’ve raised – they are more explanatory in nature so don’t feel like you need to respond (although you are certainly welcome to). I wouldn’t mind meeting you for coffee sometime when you are in town, (but not necessarily to debate;) it sounds like the work you do (and your travels) are fascinating and I wouldn’t mind hearing about them sometime. Anyway …

1. Concerning the slavery thing – yes, slavery was much different in the Roman world than what our modern understanding of it is – it is not an apples to apples comparison. Certainly there were some horrific aspects (like the gladiatorial games) but this was not the typical form of slavery and that type of thing (killing for sport) is certainly condemned in the Bible. Aside from this though, there were indeed many who preferred and willingly stayed as slaves in the Roman world since it meant a better life for them. Here is a link to an article which I think gives a pretty good explanation between modern (or recent) slavery and slavery during the Roman world. It is rather lengthy (so skim as you please) but it is solid and provides many good sources:

(http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html).

I say all this just so you have an understanding of why I can be adamantly against modern slavery but still think that certain forms if it in the ancient world, though not preferred, were not necessarily evil. You may still not agree and that’s fine.

2. Concerning “because God’s word says it’s wrong” – I can understand you do not like this response from Christians but it is foundational in nature. I’m not saying this because I have no answer for you; I’m saying it because God’s word is the foundation and standard of my morality. You earlier said Christians base morality on what God says and non-Christians on “do what you want unless it hurts somebody” but surely you see this is not the case. Non-Christians (religious or otherwise) have a myriad of different standards for right and wrong. Some certainly hold to the one you mentioned but others hold to “if it feels good do it” or “survival of the fittest, I’m going to do whatever is best for me to advance myself and crush anyone who is in the way, etc” just to name some common ones – so which one is right? And what authority (rhetorically speaking) do you or I have to tell someone they are wrong and that our view is correct? That’s why I point to God’s word, because I am certainly not the standard or authority, He is.

3. Concerning science in general. Even based off of the article that you sent (which was interesting by the way but still speculative), it is clear that there is no scientific agreement on this. The fact that there are people who are former homosexuals is also very telling. Also concerning dinosaurs, yes I believe that man and dinosaurs existed together (although admittedly not all Christians agree on this). I think there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this, I didn’t send you a bunch of articles/resources because I figured it would be fruitless – just as if you sent me a bunch of articles supporting the contrary. This is not to say you are not willing to read etc but you know what I mean. Below are just a couple of links to some articles showing scientific evidence for a young earth. I’m not saying you have to agree with them, but at least know that my head is not buried in the sand concerning science.

(http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/)

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world)

Me: 1. I get it. You're trying to validate slavery because the Bible says it's OK. But you know what? Many people in the South also felt the same way depending upon their master. It's all they knew, and people were often willing to accept their place in life, especially if it wasn't so bad. Does that mean that what was going on there was right? No. Just because people are happy with where they are doesn't mean that things should change. Look up Stockholm syndrome. Should hostages stay hostages just because they've become accustomed to it? Also, the gay community is not happy with the situation you are trying to put them in, so this is no comparison. I know the original idea was just that slavery is "OK" because the slaves were "OK" with it, but it should also be taken in the context of human rights from slavery to acceptance/tolerance of the gay community. Imposing beliefs on other people that they wouldn't put on themselves is not right -- you know, within reason where no one is getting hurt.

I do not and will not ever agree that slavery of any form is OK. You're using deluded logic to support the Bible, which, in all fairness is outdated. If the Holy Book was written today it would not have rules for slavery. The Bible is a product of its time.

2. "God says so" -- It's a means of not having to think for yourself. Analytically break down the subject. For instance, instead of just saying that homosexuality is "wrong" "because God says so", and you've got it into your head that homosexuality is not only wrong because of that, but to make it easier for you to understand this, you think that it's a choice. How many gay people do you know? Have you ever asked them how they knew they were gay and whether or not it's a choice? Also think about this one. I brought it up when speaking with your mom, but I didn't get an answer: WHY ON EARTH would gay people continue to be gay with the discrimination that people such as yourself place on them? If being gay is a choice, why would these people choose to be martyrs? Just to be different? There's got to be something deeper to it. People have DIED over their "choice" to be gay. It's not like being born African American where there's no way to hide it, these people choose to be themselves and you condemn them and some people in God's name have been known to be generally violent or kill them, again, thinking that they're justified in doing so. I know you're not the kind being violent nor killing, but you still think that hatred is justified against these people and that's almost just as bad. Does Jesus really say to hate anyone? And even if he does, does he not say that you should leave the judgement to him?

Morals: "So which one is right?". See, I am justified in saying that it's an individual choice. But here's the thing. I understand that Western law is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing. For the most part any religious beliefs worldwide were created to establish order. There are a few that you see where human sacrifice was once practiced (you see vestiges of that with Abraham and Isaac), but luckily as time progresses people realize that not everything that is the cultural norm is necessarily beneficial to the people. (This again also pertains to slavery and basic human rights.)

So back to which one is "right". That's the thing about morality, unless you believe that it's black and white "God said so", then there's really nothing to go off of since it's actually a bit of gray. This is why theocracies rule. If you want everyone to live by standards that you think are worthy of praise, then you impose them with the fear of the supernatural, the unseen eye. There's a reason history doesn't tell of any sort of religious-less cultures. To form a cohesive group, people need uniformity to base their beliefs on. They need to know that there is some common ground when they meet somebody in their "territory". Do you think it's surprising that the pharaohs called themselves demi-gods? Half-man, half-god. It's to put fear into the hearts of his subjects and to take away any idea that he wasn't where he was supposed to be -- you know, it's like justifying slavery on false pretenses...

So all that I can ascribe to in my own life, since I don't believe in a nebulous deity that is constantly judging me, is that I am nice to other people and I do thinks that I think are not harmful to them or to their well-being. This includes accepting people for who they are. Homosexuality is not appealing to me in the slightest, especially between men, but as long as I'm not being pushed into it, I have no qualms with what people do with their own lives. I'm not going to judge.

And this doesn't even have to end with people. I think animals, plants, all life deserve to live. I try to be as sympathetic as possible unless anyone or anything attempts to harm myself, my property, or people I care about -- and sometimes even people that I don't particularly care for or know at all. You CAN have morals living a Godless life. You live with them for yourself, not because you're trying to please somebody, or because you'll be rewarded greatly in the end. You do it because life is sacred no matter what form it comes in. Because, seriously, if there's anything in the Bible that I subscribe to, it's the Golden Rule. Do unto others... I don't wish to be harmed or told what I can and can't do, so if it's not harming or imposing on anybody else, then I should be able to do it.

I've yet to come to a situation where without God's morals, that I haven't been able to decide whether what I was doing was right or wrong. And I'm not saying I'm a perfect person. I've done things that I've regretted and am not happy about, but I have known during or shortly after that it wasn't something that puts my character in the greatest light. But I can still resolve to better myself in the future. You learn from your mistakes. I make it right with the people I have harmed or upset, and I move on, remembering that situation for future life experiences.

You can use God's word as a blueprint for how you live your life, but just remember that it was written in a time that is much different than ours. Slavery was culturally acceptable back then. It is no longer today. Racism, or at least cultural hatred was common in the Bible. Today, well, we're working on it, but in theory our laws dictate that it shouldn't be an issue. But you know what? That wasn't even the case when this country came into existence. Why do you think there's so much strife in this country today? People are leaning on documents that are 250 years old, from a time where cars, planes, computers, etc weren't even concepts. And now you're trying to fit the law from their time into what's relevant today?! In some instances it works, but with others, you just can't do it and you have to proceed on your own.

Someday homosexuality will be respected, maybe only ephemerally in the way that race is, but someday people will realize that it is not a choice. And then they'll look back and wonder how people such as yourself could have been so ignorant about the matter. It. is. not. a. choice. Imagine what people do today when they look back at the KKK and see how they used the Bible to justify hatred. That will be you. Jesus. does. not. condone. hatred.

As for what authority do you have? You have as much as me. We each have our own opinions and that's all we can offer. It's why we don't change. If God really wanted me to be a Christian, he could make it happen. You'll mention free will, which oddly enough, in Mormonism, it's because Lucifer, Jesus' brother, didn't want free will that there was the schism between the two. We're lucky that Jesus won, right? (No, I am not Mormon, I just believe in learning about other religions, you should try it.)

So with that said. Who should have moral authority? I think that in a culture where we are actually a mixture of cultures, that none shall reign supreme. You can feel free to praise God in your churches, sing to him, show your joy, Muslims and Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, can all do the same, just as far as they're not telling anyone else how to live their lives. Since we have so many cultures represented, Federal Law should not impose one culture's religion over another. If that were the case, then if Romney got into power, maybe he would start to lobby for support in things that forced everyone to go on missions when they're 18, or whatever concept you can think of. Maybe he'll reinstate polygamy... who knows? It is not fair for your religion to dictate to millions of unbelievers how they should live their lives. These people don't want to tell you how to live, they just want to be left alone to live.

3. The article was just pointing to the formulation of this kind of knowledge, which is why I relented and said that you didn't have to believe it, but instead you should go out and talk to the gay community to find out for yourself first hand.

Former homosexuals are those who have been browbeaten into conforming. Or they could also be bisexual (as sexuality is often a continuum) and they have settled for the opposite genders. Are there really "reformed" gays that haven't been pushed to become so either forcefully or by peer pressure?

I have held things that are 12,000 years old. There is no way you are going to convince me otherwise. Though, like you said, I'm not going to be able to do the same for you. http://flickr.com/gp/baggis/1356rr

But as for dinosaurs, I will concede that there is no solid evidence of cohabitation with people, however, I do believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and things like moa (which are now extinct) are vestiges of this evolutionary process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa

What I find interesting is that there is some evidence for this evolution. Today's birds have bumps on their ulnae (lower arm) for strong feather attachment to aid in flight. Velociraptors also have this feature. You don't have to read the article, but at least look at the picture. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721.full.pdf

And really. I find it hard to believe that asking for simple tolerance from a Christian is something I have to do. I'm not asking for you to believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old, or that Neandertals are a real thing, I just think that offering your fellow man a little courtesy of life is not too much to ask for.

Riding Dinosaurs

Another facebook discussion. This one I figure I should put up because parts were already deleted. The original response, shown as (deleted) below, asked about how belief can't be taken as truth. I may have butchered that, but I've already forgotten. You'll understand more or less from my response. Here it is starting with the original post: 

They do exist! This guy believes people could have ridden dinosaurs. And he tells your public-school-going children what to read! Personal view vs. observational science...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

KG: I wanna ride a dinosaur! 

JB: (deleted)

Me: Science doesn't disprove it, you're right. But there's also no proof. So I guess you could say that people once lived underwater, people were once able to fly, people were once 300 feet tall, people fought off aliens 50 times before they started to leave us alone... Get my point? 

Me: And yeah. I felt bad for that guy. Colbert gave him a few things to think about. But: "Somebody has to stand up to the experts!" -- really? Who does he think he is? Why does his personal belief overshadow people who make it their life's work looking into the intricacies of nature? He gets to tell them their observable, replicable data is wrong? 

JB: Fair enough, but it seems like there is evidence that indicates man and dinosaurs existed together (aside from what the Bible clearly teaches) such cave drawings, oral accounts from various cultures around the world, even worldwide stories of dragons (which have certainly been embellished) seem to indicate that people from various parts of the world probably encountered dinosaurs at some point. Just my thoughts 

 Me: I would be interested in seeing these cave drawings if you have links. I'm a big believer in there being some truth behind oral tradition. It's just hard to tease out what's what, meaning, unless we find hard evidence, we may never know. Our difference is that I start from scratch. Believers have a preconceived notion that they're working with which may or may not be true. However, when new evidence arises, they should be willing to adapt their world view. I don't judge anybody for their beliefs as long as they can justify them. 

PS: asinine... makes my head hurt 

RM: WOW, I am sorry but this is just plain nuts. Even in the 'paintings' exist it would not convince me. 

Me: What about this? Beginner's Bible Coloring Book! 

DM: This is the same crap in the flyers that Sarah Palin and her kooky religious friends used to leave in public toilets. 

ME: Actually. Let me go back. In 7th grade I went up to my Bible teacher. Yes, Bible. I was in a Christian school and we were obliged to have 7 periods, one being fully dedicated to the Bible. So I went up to Mrs. Smith and asked her if the Leviathan as seen in Job (Job 3:1-10) (Job 41:12-26) was actually an illusion to dinosaurs. She flat out told me no. I was ready to have this discussion with her, thoughts that I had been swirling around in my head, but she flat out cut me down. 

See, I had grown up loving dinosaurs. My room basically expressed that -- curtains, sheets, posters, etc. Then I have someone tell me that basically these creatures don't fit into my world view. One of my favorite things, and it’s not real? How am I supposed to compartmentalize this? What about all of those fossils that I've drooled over in museums? I’m thinking to myself that those couldn’t possibly be fake. They couldn't be! Dinosaurs had to fit in there somewhere. This may have been the beginning of the end for me. 

But herein lies the problem: My 7th grade teacher was willing to stake a claim on, "Oh, Leviathan is in no way a dinosaur," and right here and now, you can tell me, "Hey, the Bible clearly talks about dinosaurs!" It looks to me like we have a disagreement here. And it looks to me like the problem lies within the interpretation. We can take the Bible and get out of it whatever fits our purposes. So do dinosaurs exist? By asking two different people who wholeheartedly believe the Bible, I get two different answers. The argument can go on for centuries. And with Mrs. Smith’s response I didn’t get to talk about the age of dinosaurs at all, because in her perspective, they never even existed. 

 *Switch to science mode* Step 1: Do dinosaurs exist? "Why of course, let me show you some samples." Step 2: How old are they? "Well, these fossils lie between these two tephra layers, so they would be older than 65 million and younger than 95 million being the respective ages of the layers."

Now is there any arguing with that? Within the scientific realm, no. It's pretty set in stone. No credible scientist would argue dates that were well explained and documented which show the methods used to arrive at those dates. But do you know who does? This guy in the video does. Why? Because like my same problem with dinosaurs, he can't compartmentalize that cells could have evolved over 4.5 billion years. 

So let’s ask a few questions: Can he disprove tephrachronology? No. He deals in teeth. He probably doesn’t even know what tephrachronology is. He sounds Young Earth to me, so why would he bother to know? So if you don’t understand something, how are you going to refute it? This is my biggest concern. People are willing to naysay, they’re willing to throw out entire theories, but they don’t even bother to sit down and see what people are trying to say. Somebody has taken the time and effort to lay out how they have come to a conclusion so everyone else can follow it and he goes, “Pssh. Not what I believe, so it’s not true!” So really he’s saying that his ignorance knows more than somebody who has looked into a problem. He gives himself authority over other people based solely on a feeling or what he’s heard. It’s based solely on faith. 

It's so depressing that as science starts to explain the unknowns in the universe that people still cling onto something that was once used to explain those voids from times before technology didn't allow for it. I have a hard time understanding Christians who are scientists, but I accept them. Though I have an even harder time understanding anybody who thinks that they know better than people who have dedicated their lives to becoming knowledgeable in a subject that requires more than what's in a single Book. I can understand the idea of a deity. But to suppose that the earth is still just over 6,000 years old and to disregard all the proof that people have taken time to understand over generations and to blatantly negating that, well, that's just stubborn ignorance. Sorry. 

Study a subject before you attempt to profess any knowledge on the subject. I can go toe-to-toe with anyone who claims themselves to be an ardent Christian. They should give the same respect to science.

Single

Not quite in the single state of mind just yet. I suppose I should work on it, but I don't much care to.

Antibiotics

My throat has been bothering me for 10 months now. I got sick in Anchorage and at first I had a horrible hack and lots of mucus, but now it's just devolved into swollen tonsils, onset by various foods. I finally let my parents take me to urgent care last night and I received antibiotics. You take two initially. I did so last night to get started. Normally my throat just swells, but for the past three days it was actually painful. The pills almost immediately helped kick that symptom, so now it's just back to the regular swelling. The antibiotics did make me drowsy, achy, and upset my stomach, but I still managed to stay up until 6am, which is about my norm lately (stupid Law & Order).

Bigotry

Once again, the only thing that makes it to my blog are discussions on Facebook. This one talks about supporting gay marriage and how it relates to the Preamble of the Constitution. LK starts off the convo, actually with a tweet. I'm TS.

What I just don't get is how people who are against allowing gay marriage don't see how they're being bigots. They have no explanation for not wanting it other than they think it's "not right", but would be damned if someone took their rights away. Apparently it's "OK" if the right doesn't already exist. Here it is:

LK Retweet @GuyEndoreKaiser: “I hate when the government tells me what to do… I just want it to tell everyone else what to do.” –rich white men

DS ‎"Bettering myself is too hard, so I'mma just stay on welfare and line up for some free Obama money. Don't know where it comes from, don't care either, it's free Obama money and that's why I love him" -lazy black people

DS ‎"I hate that I can't get what I want for free, so I'll just ask the government to force other people to fund what I want." -selfish Fluke types

LK Is your tv permanently stuck on Fox News? Because I'm pretty sure that was running on the ticker this morning.

DS ‎"I can't believe a fair and open election decided against my personal interests, so I'll just bitch until some court overturns a democratic vote." -whiny lesbian couples

LK Okay DS, let's get some things straight. Everyone on welfare is not on welfare because they are lazy. Ethics are not based on economic situation (thanks TS). Second, by saying things like "anyone can work hard and get a job" you are implying that everyone can work hard and get a job, and it is just downright stupid to believe that's true. And if you don't think that the "personal interests" of gays and lesbians are valid human concerns, then I don't know how you can call yourself an American. Fair and open elections also came up with segregation of blacks and whites in schools, and if you ask me I think it's a damn good thing that someone "whined" enough until that was overturned.

GM Haha I love you LK. I agree with you on each and every point you made from 1st hand xperience.

DS I don't actually watch the news. I get all my info from my phone, and my three news apps are HuffingtonPost, BBC, and China Daily. I am offended that you would stereotype me.

You're right; ethics are not based on economic situation. I'm completely certain that I did not say "anyone can work hard and get a job" (thanks for putting words in my mouth). Technically, on that point, you are wrong. Anyone CAN work hard and anyone CAN get a job because our society allows people the opportunity to apply as much elbow grease as they want to any employment they have.

Personal interests of gays and lesbians are not "human" concerns because they have nothing to do with fundamental aspects of our species; one's personal interests are just that- a personal interest. To say that only those who sympathize with homosexuals are Americans is indeed stupid.

I have no idea what "fair and open elections" made blacks and whites segregated in schools (references do help one's case from time to time), but segregation was forcibly overturned because blacks had protection guaranteed by the Constitution and the United States Code. Gay marriage "rights" do not.

I have no personal interest or religious persuasion for either side in that argument. I see the issues as A and B. The Golden State put the issue to the people in a fair and democratic election and a majority chose A; in response, those who wanted B bitched and moaned and cried foul because they didn't get what they wanted. Had the people chosen B, and those who wanted A done the same, I would bet an entire year's pay the Gay community would say something to the effect of "We won, you lost, shut up and sit down." What I dislike about the issue is hypocrisy, and no one should ever stand for that.

DS I support A because A was chosen by the people. If the people had chosen B I would support that instead. To whine to the courts when the people don't democratically decide what you want is what's un-American here.

GM ‎^majority shouldn't be alowed to vote for the minority on civil rights ... that's my main issue with the whole fiasco tha was Prop8 .... it's hard for many Americans (and people in general) to sympathize and understand with others on issues that they don't personally deal with, which is why it's totally understandable that marraig equality was shut down/delayed.

TS ‎"I am unaware of my white male privilege" - DS

TS ‎"The people chose Gore so I took it to the Supreme Court" - G W Bush

LK So you're saying you'll support whatever the majority vote is, regardless of its moral or ethic substance? What does that say about you as a person? The majority also used to believe that women shouldn't vote. Good thing someone out there didn't just take that to be gospel truth since it's what the majority decided.

DS Moral and ethical substance are relative. When someone does not have a personal stake in an issue, the wisest course of action to think logically. Because we don't have an authoritarian government to tell us what to do, the most ethical way to decide an issue is to let the people vote. The result of that vote should be upheld until such a time that the majority of the people believe differently enough to change the statute.

To claim the ethical high ground and cry tyrrany of the majority seems to be a tactic of the bitter (and, increasingly, the Left). I can only imagine what you'd say if gay marriage had been legalized and the fundamentalist Christian right claimed that the majority voted enact an unethical law.

Again, hypocrisy...

LK So... Just to recap, you agree that it's fine to deny people rights based on their sexual orientation just because you are not personally affected, and because that's what everyone else is doing.

DS You do the same thing. And essentially, yes, I do; and I do so because while I believe gay marriage to be illogical I have no true personal stake in the issue. As such, it is more ethical for me to uphold the tennet of democracy over the "morality" of one side's argument...ESPECIALLY since both sides claim to be morally correct.

DS2 ‎"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken." - Col Sanders

TS Well, one side is denying basic rights for other people's pursuit of happiness based on their religious beliefs. The other side would likely stimulate the economy by leaps and bounds to express their happiness (think of all the money being thrown around for weddings all at once). But I think the real issue is that insurance companies have no desire to have that many more dependents.

DS ‎...and therein lies your fundamental fallacy: we have the right to the PURSUIT of happines, not the right of a GUARANTEE to happiness. Because the government is not denying gay groups the ability to petition, lobby, or vote the right to pursuit is indeed being exercised and upheld. A right to play the game is not a right to win the game.

Gay weddings would not stimulate an economy any more than the stimulus bill did. The insurance company argument may or may not be accurate, but I highly doubt that's the reason why people continue to vote no.

TS Pursuit at what stage? That's rather ambiguous and differs per your and my perspective. Pursuit in the sense of striving for equality, or pursuit starting from a baseline of that equality having already been established -- "All men [people] are created equal"....? That's like trying to play a game of chess without all the pieces. "Oh Billy, don't worry, you don't need a queen."

But where does propaganda money come from? Do you really think that the religious industry isn't influenced by those with money? Religion is brainwashing at its finest.

DS There isn't a "level" in the pursuit clause. Life, liberty, and the pursuit. Life, in that the gov't can't kill you without due process. Liberty in that the gov't can't take your freedom without due process. Pursuit in that the gov't can't keep you from trying to achive a state that makes you happy. The created equal clause was a statment of political equality to counter the concept of unchecked power through kingship by divine right. It did not mean blacks and whites were equal under the law (for they clearly weren't when the document was signed). It did not mean that homosexuals are to be treated as equal candidates for their own brand of marriage. The phrase meant what it meant within the context of its time. To claim it means something to the contrary because we think differently today is dangerous.

The right to pursuit means you have to right to unfettered pursuit of what you want, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to get what they want.

Propaganda money (on BOTH sides) comes from interested parties, and because such parties have a vested interest in the outcome of an issue they are exercising their right to pursuit by donating funds. Organized religion has been influenced (both positively and negatively, speaking relative to it's position) by outside money just like other groups.

TS ‎"There isn't a "level" in the pursuit clause."
According to you? A lack of definition doesn't mean that there isn't room for interpretation. Obviously that's the biggest problem with that document.

"Liberty in that the gov't can't take your freedom without due process."
What if those liberties aren't already afforded? This is apparently "the constitution according to DS". I'm glad your fundamental rights are not being infringed upon. Weren't we talking about hypocrisy earlier?

"Organized religion has been influenced (both positively and negatively, speaking relative to it's position) by outside money just like other groups."
Except they should have no say in the matter. Having exclusionary rights from paying any taxes they shouldn't be allowed to influence the vote. If they truly were a non-profit, not a capitalist venture disguised as one, I might think differently.

DS ‎"...and the pursuit of happiness." I honestly can't understand how you could think that to be an open ended, interperatable phrase. You have the right to pursue that which makes you happy. You do no have the right to have what makes you happy given to you, especially at any expense to others. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

The biggest threat to what the framers viewed as liberty during their era was unjustified imprisonment. Liberty to them meant freedom (as in not imprisoned), not the ability to do what you want. And no, this isn't the constitution according the me, it's the constitution according to several constitutional history classes. Your arguments lead me to believe that you've never had one.

Stating that organized religion has been influenced by outside money is a non-partisan fact. I'm amused that you're taking a simple statement and using it as a segue to an opinionated argument (even though I happen to agree with you).

However, as a counterpoint, the separation of church and state clause (as butchered and misinterpreted as it has become) would apply to organized religion, thereby making religious exception from taxes logical. As citizens of the United States members of organized religion have the right to pursue what they see as happiness by exercising fiscal power just like non-profit political organizations have the ability to exercise fiscal power.

TS ‎"You do no have the right to have what makes you happy given to you, especially at any expense to others."
EXPENSE OF OTHERS?! Who is hurting from straight bigots finding it "unsavory" for gay people to marry? I don't think that's at the expense of the bigots. Please explain yourself here.

I'm just wondering how you can't see your white male STRAIGHT privilege. Look at the rights you have. Look at the rights these people don't have. Did you fight for yours? Were they given to you just because of how you were born? Let me help you on that last question: Yes.

"I'm amused that you're taking a simple statement and using it as a segue to an opinionated argument"
Religion in this instance (where the money is coming from) is promoting hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

"However, as a counterpoint, the separation of church and state clause (as butchered and misinterpreted as it has become) would apply to organized religion, thereby making religious exception from taxes logical."
So it means that the government can't mess with the church but the church can influence the government? That is not "separation". We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

LK Ok, so say I'm gay. I want to get married, something which does not affect you as a straight person. My happiness does not impede your happiness. However, your decision to prevent me from marrying the person I love DOES impede my happiness. So, pursuing the thing that makes you happy (for whatever reason) does come at the expense of my happiness. This is not a question of "well more people voted this way so that means we all need to just be happy with it." If that were the case you wouldn't have a problem with anything Obama has done since he was elected by the majority.

DS ‎@Shinabarker:

The church is not influencing the government. The church is influencing the people, and the people are, in turn, influencing their constitution (assuming we are still using Prop 8 as a reference point). Now, if the church had the power to veto legislation outright then we would have an instance of religion influencing government, but we do not. And as we've seen in recent years the federal government has and is messing with organized religion. Tit for tat, I suppose some might say.

There is no limitation on either the church's or the government's or political organization's ability to persuade people.

My original statement, had you read it correctly (and it's becoming obvious that you are hard pressed to see a sentence free from your politically biased lense) is that organized religion *has* been influenced by outside funds in the past. It's just a statement of fact. There is no bent or slant to that statement. As for "religion promoting hate, intolerance, and bigotry" liberal organizations also promote hate for conservative values, intolerance for those who oppose them, and bigotry against traditionalists. Both sides use the same tactics. Why are you incensed at this?

Any pivileges I have were granted to me because the were the standing privileges based on the laws of the country. Don't like them? Change them legally. I dare not say change them legally AND fairly, because fairness is both relative and something I see the Left oft misconstruing.

Again, for what feels like the umpteenth time, the right to pursuit lets you pursue. If getting what makes you happy makes someone else happy you have no right to government intervention so that what you want is simply *given* to you in a way that is detrimental to others.

If the government should put the proverbial gun to the other side's head to give you what makes you happy then the government should be able to put the proverbial gun to YOUR head to give your opponents what makes them happy. That leaves us with a stalemate and right back where we started. The only way to settle such a dispute is to through the democratic process, and then to respect and enforce the will of the people. When the will of the people changes, change the law.

Congrats on your racist, heterophobic, bigoted arguments. I'm afraid I'll have to stop replying to your posts because any hope of a serious, levelheaded debate has devolved to one of one sided arguments countered by volleys of emotional outbursts and name calling. I'd chuckle at how stereotypically liberal this is, but it's honestly not funny to me any more.

DS ‎@LK:
The only thing I have problems with (with respect to Obama) are the actions he's taken that are unconstitutional. I have logical cause to be opposed to those actions because I have a legal starting point on which to base my decisions. The Prop 8 issue was trying to creat a legal starting point because there isn't one.

I don't have a problem with states that do allow gay marriage after legalizing legislation being passed by either the people or their duly elected representatives...because that is the perogative of the people.

Because I don't care to have a dog in the fight I have to look at the big picture. This picture has three sides: A, B, and The Process. I don't care to support A for the reasons A believes A is right; the same can be said for B. Therefore, it is both logical and ethical for me to support The Process because The Process is fundamentally American. As an extension of said process, I am thereby required to support the outcome, and that's what I'm doing.

Just because I don't agree with the opposition doesn't mean i'm reasonably or morally obligated to support you.

TS ‎"And as we've seen in recent years the federal government has and is messing with organized religion."
Where? And I'd also like to add that these megachurches use federal dollars to have police provide for parking management. How is this a separation? The church doesn't contribute to this at all.

"organized religion *has* been influenced by outside funds in the past."
Present and future? Why is it that religious affiliation is such a big issue within politics? So people who are blind to making their own decisions know who to follow. "He's such a good, Christian fellow."

"Don't like them? Change them legally. I dare not say change them legally AND fairly, because fairness is both relative and something I see the Left oft misconstruing."
People are trying to change them, but it's assholes like you who think they know better than the people who are being affected by your prejudice.

"Any privileges I have were granted to me because the were the standing privileges"
To quote you earlier "There isn't a 'level' in the pursuit clause." Obviously, there is. You can be happy with what you have, but you feel like it makes you happier (I'm assuming, because you won't answer this) to have other people not be afforded the same rights. And it is a right. What else would you call it, a privilege? You didn't earn it.

The issue, it seems, is that some majorities feel a certain way at the expense of others. If they bothered to think of how they might feel in that situation, then maybe they wouldn't be such assholes about it.

Yes. I'm heterophobic. I was the one stating that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married... Your rhetoric is the hate-filled one.

TS I see what's going on here. You think that the opposite of your homophobia is heterophobia. It doesn't work that way, dude.

LK I think it's hilarious that I was just called a racist bigot by an angry conservative who is opposed to gays having the right to marry like the rest of us.

TS And I appreciate that you likely purposefully misspelled my name. But I suppose I don't really have to mess with DS, do I? [DS's last name is a reference someone might make if you smelled something foul.]